So... Mars?

Do you honestly think that the next thirty years, as it has been suggested by some, is a realistic time for a Mars colonisation? Do we really want to put billions into a camp on a planet where we'll only have 6 people at one time? It'd be cool, but isn't there... the real world we have to worry about?

It'll probably fall to the Private sector, either of their own accord or after the camp is established.

The atmosphere, I believe, would be too thin to hold in a lot of the green houses gasses necessary to warm up the planet enough. If we were somehow able to solve that, we would then need a water supply before we start planting trees anywhere, and there is still the question of how fertile the soil is. It doesn't look very good for plants as far as I can tell.

By the time we're colonizing other planets, another race would probably try to wipe us out. We draw penises in the dirt of other planets, I'm pretty sure they're gonna want to keep our stupid asses from leaving the solar system.

http://applicants.mars-one.com/

Probably bullshit, but eh. relevant.

I was meaning colonisation in the term ofnjsut setting up a tiny camp with 6 people... 6. 6.

Colonization? No. Landing? Yes. Most likely not done by America though given that gutting NASA is what all the cool American politicians are doing.

It'd probably be easier to land a small colony than just land. Landing requires the fuel to get back- colonizing does not.

cursiveWrit wrote:

It'd probably be easier to land a small colony than just land. Landing requires the fuel to get back- colonizing does not.

Asking them to stay is pretty much asking them to die alone if the budget for a supply trip ever dries up.

Yeah

But there is no way we're getting to Mars before like 2200 without this

Jester wrote:

The atmosphere, I believe, would be too thin to hold in a lot of the green houses gasses necessary to warm up the planet enough. If we were somehow able to solve that, we would then need a water supply before we start planting trees anywhere, and there is still the question of how fertile the soil is. It doesn't look very good for plants as far as I can tell.

By the time we're colonizing other planets, another race would probably try to wipe us out. We draw penises in the dirt of other planets, I'm pretty sure they're gonna want to keep our stupid asses from leaving the solar system.

Planetwide terraforminf would be impossible given our current technology, extremely time consuming, and pretty impractical. Warming up the planet wouldn't be necessary either; the equator has temperatures that we could tolerate and any colony worth shit would have to have heating antways. As in for water, huge amounts of ice are on the planet's poles.

In any case, I believe that we have the technology to build a colony within thirty years, but I doubt it will be done by the US or by a private company. Neither of the two really have the money for such a risky venture. I don't know the situation of any other nation's space programs, so I won't rule out the possibility of a colony, but it still doesn't sound likely.

We have the technology to construct a colony on Mars. It would take a few little leaps, but it is easily conceivable. The main issue is whether it is worth building a colony on Mars. What are the benefits of building a colony on Mars? It is too far for gaining resources. The Moon is much more convenient for a solid space launch platform. We can get most of our worthwhile scientific analysis via remote probes, or in future a manned return trip. The only possible use for a colony on Mars is if we want more space to live in than is available on Earth. While things aren't the best on Earth, I'm not sure they yet warrant a very expensive and tangibly unprofitable endeavour to colonise Mars.

The colony would have to be completely self-sufficient, too. Earth can't afford to send frequent supplies. Should something bad happen, the colonists are on their own. I'm not sure how many qualified people would want to go through with the isolation. Even if you send a thousand people there, they will still feel isolated.

So near future: little use for a Mars colony.

they wouldn't really feel isolated, not after the first generation. There's a great asimov story whose name I can't recall about exactly this

I'll have to re-read it.

The scenario is quite unpredictable, because we have never seen something quite like it. They may suffer psychological harm from being on a planet months away from home with no real-time communications, crammed into a most likely small and definitely contained Mars colony. On the other hand, it may turn out like other colonisation missions throughout history. But a Mars colony would have something no Earth colony ever had to worry about- no humans at all aside from the settlers; and restricted living conditions. These may or may not change a lot of things. I will agree that if you can get past the first generation it'll be easier from there.

There is still the matter of benefit. A Mars colony needs to have significant benefits for anyone to actually do it. At this stage in history, I see no benefit in establishing a permanent colony on Mars. At most we might establish small settlements for temporary habitation like those we have on Antarctica. As I see it, at least.

It's also unpredictable because it's entirely hypothetical. I don't want to be making any guesses about it because it would be entirely pointless beyond conjecture.

BBeast wrote:

The scenario is quite unpredictable, because we have never seen something quite like it. They may suffer psychological harm from being on a planet months away from home with no real-time communications, crammed into a most likely small and definitely contained Mars colony. On the other hand, it may turn out like other colonisation missions throughout history. But a Mars colony would have something no Earth colony ever had to worry about- no humans at all aside from the settlers; and restricted living conditions. These may or may not change a lot of things. I will agree that if you can get past the first generation it'll be easier from there.

There is still the matter of benefit. A Mars colony needs to have significant benefits for anyone to actually do it. At this stage in history, I see no benefit in establishing a permanent colony on Mars. At most we might establish small settlements for temporary habitation like those we have on Antarctica. As I see it, at least.

So far as seeing something like it- what about the arctic villages of a couple hundred people? They never get visitors and can only very rarely leave, it's about the closest we can get to a mars colony... unless we think about, say north american colonies, in which case we have a damn fine comparison.

I get there are differences, but I think human spirit would find a way, just as soon as science does.

There is one major advantage and resource of a colony on Mars.
Iron.
Sweet, dear, iron.
See all that red? That's an abundance of rust. Which means that there are HUGE iron reserves very near the surface.

Mars also has far more abundant sources of gems than Earth does, and obviously mining isn't a very sustainable industry; eventually we'll hardly have anything left to mine on Earth and we'll have to either get extremely efficient recycling, or mine elsewhere.

Personally, I think Mars mining colonies are far more plausible than asteroid mining ones seeing as Mars would allow for much more permanent mining operations, and colonizing it seems like it would be a hell of a lot easier than trying to mine in the asteroid belt.

We have little shortage of iron on Earth. The cost of flights between Mars and Earth would be incredibly high for quite a while into the future. Until the cost of interstellar flights come down a lot, mining Mars might not be so profitable.

Mining asteroids has one big advantage over mining a planet. Gravity. With the current cost of space flight, it is much cheaper to send a mining ship to a few asteroids and back than it is to send one to Mars and back. Why? Because taking off again after landing on Mars and picking up a few hundred tonnes of minerals, even after refinement, would be extremely difficult. Not impossible, just very expensive, and quite likely not profitable. Asteroids don't have that problem. After mining, you just have to turn around, apply a small amount of thrust and coast back to Earth.

Some time in the future the mining of Mars might be a practical plan, but I can't see that future being in the next couple of decades. I might be wrong. I have nothing against the idea of colonising Mars. If we don't dream, we'll never get there. I'm just trying to be rational.


I suppose people would find a way to cope with being on Mars. But psychological stress would always be something a prospective space colony organiser would have to look out for, because if it gets bad it will be made worse by the location.

We've actually recently developed a new, cheaper and easier method of launching and moving rockets, which could theoretically be used to set up a mars colony like this.

I am intrigued. Do you know anything about it?

very, very little. I don't even remember the name, I just remember reading about it. I'll look for it today, and let you know if I find it again.

I know that feeling, when you mention something you had remembered in passing and somebody wants to know more but you don't remember it.

Google it is. Hopefully we have enough terms to successfully find it.